If I understand social security, and I think I do, a person contributes money to a fund which the government holds. At the end of a certain period of time, the money is released in increments to the person who contributed the money.

So, if that is the definition of a parasite, I suppose I'm mooching off of my local bank.

thegreekdog wrote:If I understand social security, and I think I do, a person contributes money to a fund which the government holds. At the end of a certain period of time, the money is released in increments to the person who contributed the money.

So, if that is the definition of a parasite, I suppose I'm mooching off of my local bank.

To be 100% honest, I read her book and I'm not all-together clear on her use of the word "Parasite." I think that it means anyone who accepts or lives on money that was redistributed to them. But again, I'm not for certain if her use of the word was limited to that. A "looter" is someone who takes your money with the threat of force, and a "moocher" is someone who doesn't work for a living, but instead relies on welfare and such. Ayn Rand believed that Social Security was wealth redistribution because when it went into effect, the elderly who were receiving payments hadn't hardly payed anything in. They were living off of the labor of the younger generations.I'm sorry it's just that as an admitted Libertarian, I had assumed erroneously that you had read Atlas Shrugged. Weirdos out here love the book. So I apologize for that.

Her counselor and law firm affirm that they had to convince her to accept Social Security and Medicaid. But again I stress that she still accepted Social Security and Medicaid. I've noticed that everyone is taking exception to the fact that she accepted Social Security and they're ignoring my point that she also applied for Medicaid under a fake name. And again, that's not me attempting to dismantle her philosophy. That's another argument entirely. Yeah I do think Libertarianism is nonsense and dangerous, but that's a whole other discussion. People need to stop worshiping Rand as Jesus-the-sequel who also hated the poor and accept that she was inherently fallible because she was human. For example,Thomas Jefferson has been a great influence on me. I believe him to be a great hero. I mean, just a mountain of a man. I love to read everything that he wrote, even the biography of his life. Did you know that he kept a lock of his wife's hair until he died? He couldn't bring him self to ever marry again after she died. That's beautiful and powerful and sad. But I can accept that he was also a hypocrite and darkly ill-informed when it came to Africans. He railed against slavery but refused to free his slaves, even upon death. And he once wrote that slaves smell because half of their body waste emptied out through their sweat.Even Marcus Aurelius, who's my favorite philosopher, was also a terrifying butcher. Men are men.

thegreekdog wrote:If I understand social security, and I think I do, a person contributes money to a fund which the government holds. At the end of a certain period of time, the money is released in increments to the person who contributed the money.

So, if that is the definition of a parasite, I suppose I'm mooching off of my local bank.

To be 100% honest, I read her book and I'm not all-together clear on her use of the word "Parasite." I think that it means anyone who accepts or lives on money that was redistributed to them. But again, I'm not for certain if her use of the word was limited to that. A "looter" is someone who takes your money with the threat of force, and a "moocher" is someone who doesn't work for a living, but instead relies on welfare and such. Ayn Rand believed that Social Security was wealth redistribution because when it went into effect, the elderly who were receiving payments hadn't hardly payed anything in. They were living off of the labor of the younger generations.I'm sorry it's just that as an admitted Libertarian, I had assumed erroneously that you had read Atlas Shrugged. Weirdos out here love the book. So I apologize for that.

Her counselor and law firm affirm that they had to convince her to accept Social Security and Medicaid. But again I stress that she still accepted Social Security and Medicaid. I've noticed that everyone is taking exception to the fact that she accepted Social Security and they're ignoring my point that she also applied for Medicaid under a fake name. And again, that's not me attempting to dismantle her philosophy. That's another argument entirely. Yeah I do think Libertarianism is nonsense and dangerous, but that's a whole other discussion. People need to stop worshiping Rand as Jesus-the-sequel who also hated the poor and accept that she was inherently fallible because she was human. For example,Thomas Jefferson has been a great influence on me. I believe him to be a great hero. I mean, just a mountain of a man. I love to read everything that he wrote, even the biography of his life. Did you know that he kept a lock of his wife's hair until he died? He couldn't bring him self to ever marry again after she died. That's beautiful and powerful and sad. But I can accept that he was also a hypocrite and darkly ill-informed when it came to Africans. He railed against slavery but refused to free his slaves, even upon death. And he once wrote that slaves smell because half of their body waste emptied out through their sweat.Even Marcus Aurelius, who's my favorite philosopher, was also a terrifying butcher. Men are men.

I'm not really sure what your post means, on the whole. I did read Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand is not on my list of people who I take guidance from about day to day life (or politics). Fiction is fiction in my mind. If she was an economist I'd probably be more likely to take her seriously. That's not to say things she believes aren't things I also believe, she's just not my personal savior or whatever.

I think government is evil, but in many cases is a necessary evil. For example, I am perfectly happy paying for roads and police and fire and military defense (defense only). What I would like to take out of government would fill up a lot of space, but suffice it to say there is a lot bureaucracy and unnecessary programs. There are also a lot of things that I think are boondoggles. Finally, from a "fringe" perspective, I think that a lot of social programs are inflated such that people rely on them rather than on friends and family (even when they have friends and family). Without going into a lot of details, if someone doesn't have a non-government support network, okay, government welfare is fine. If someone does have a non-government support network, I don't think government support is necessary. That's about it.

What annoys me is when people take this view (in the above) and morph it into "Ayn Rand" or "anarchist" or "hahahaha Libertarian fool."

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game. This does not include people who really need the help or fall on hard times or have emergencies, it only includes people who don't feel like working and happily brag about not having to work.

PhatScotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game. This does not include people who really need the help or fall on hard times or have emergencies

Objectively, I think a parasite includes anyone who puts in less than they take out. If Bill and Melinda Gates signed-up for every form of social assistance available they probably wouldn't be parasites as they've contributed more than they could possibly withdraw in a lifetime. On the other hand, a child born without any limbs will probably be a parasite no matter how altruistic is his cause.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin says parasites are regressive organisms that violate the progressive nature of evolution. If we want a society based on science rather than superstition, civilization must decide on its carrying capacity for parasites. Supporting widespread state intervention in aid of the impoverished is a rejection of the theory of evolution.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Her counselor and law firm affirm that they had to convince her to accept Social Security and Medicaid. But again I stress that she still accepted Social Security and Medicaid.

This is factually incorrect.

There is only one source that exists for this meme and it is a single page in the book 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand. In it, an assistant from her literary agency refers to Medicare, not Medicaid.

Medicare, like Social Security, is an insurance program (risk is managed, for a fee). Medicaid, like AFDC, is a welfare program (risk is managed, for free). Previously you claimed you knew the difference between insurance and welfare. It appears you overestimated your ability.

I think you need to back-up, take a deep breath, try to locate some sources other than YouTube videos, and think about starting over.

There was a motion to modify the rules of future National Conventions to prohibit any candidates like Ron Paul from seeking delegates so that the Republican Party could insulate itself from insurgencies in the future. It was put to a voice vote and Boehner, as chair, said the yes votes won (you can be the judge from the video). There was a call for a division of the house (roll call vote), Boehner didn't "hear" it and declared the resolution was tabled (it can't be taken up again until the next convention in 2016 after Paul-like delegates have been excluded under the new rule) "without objection."

The Republican Party is secure! Paul is now drop-kicked in the trash bin of history with Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and John B. Anderson. In four years people will be like "remember that one fellow, Don whasshisanme? Don Paul, I think?"

There was a motion to modify the rules of future National Conventions to prohibit any candidates like Ron Paul from seeking delegates so that the Republican Party could insulate itself from insurgencies in the future. It was put to a voice vote and Boehner, as chair, said the yes votes won (you can be the judge from the video). There was a call for a division of the house (roll call vote), Boehner didn't "hear" it and declared the resolution was tabled (it can't be taken up again until the next convention in 2016 after Paul-like delegates have been excluded under the new rule) "without objection."

The Republican Party is secure! Paul is now drop-kicked in the trash bin of history with Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and John B. Anderson. In four years people will be like "remember that one fellow, Don whasshisanme? Don Paul, I think?"

GreecePwns wrote:Any Ron Paul supporter that votes for Romney, or any Republican, now, is no true libertarian/constitutionalist/anything-other-than-mainstream-Republican.

Yesterday's debacle proved that the "change the party from within strategy" simply won't work. There is too much resistance by the establishment and too many obstacles being set up.

You must be voting for Gary Johnson after this, surely. Right?

see: Donald Trump

It's a fine balancing act. Romney has to keep Trump at arm's length in public, so he doesn't dilute his support among moderates and Democrats who have given up on Obama, but he needs Trump to peddle stories of a coming apocalypse so the dying embers of the Paul campaign don't buck to Gary Johnson. You'll notice Trump is usually silent, but each time Romney orchestrates a particularly violent purge of Paul supporters from the GOP it coincides with Trump making a public announcement of some conspiracy he's uncovered involving Obama. The Paul voters grumble but quickly fall back in line. You kind of have to respect Romney's genius in this regard.

On one hand, the closest one ideologically to me would be someone on the far left (Alexander or Stein).

On the other hand, the reality is that the grassroots vs. established politics conflict >>>>>>>> the left vs. right politics conflict in terms of importance to me, which compels me to vote Johnson so the Libertarians can get one minuscule step closer to the 5% needed for FEC funding (thanks for pointing that out Saxi).

In NY, ballot access is determined by gubernatorial election results, so that won't factor in my vote.

Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.

Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

because businessmen contribute to their society.

They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?

I disagree with Scotty & John on this one. A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits with no intention of bettering their situation with the assistance given to them. Just because someone fell on hard times and needs a little support to get them through it, does not make them a parasite.

So, it's a zero-sum exchange. Wealth is taken from group A and given to group B involuntarily. Group B may add some benefit to others, but Group A will never be able to benefit anyone since their wealth was taken from them. In other words, you're leaving out the nature of this exchange and the opportunity costs.

(Back on-topic: Even Ayn Rand described the industrialists/capitalists who fed on the other industries through manipulated legislation as parasitic.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:The problem with your position, "businesses still contribute to society even though they're subsidized by the government," is that you have to ask, 'from whom did they get the money?"

So, it's a zero-sum exchange. Wealth is taken from group A and given to group B involuntarily. Group B may add some benefit to others, but Group A will never be able to benefit anyone since their wealth was taken from them. In other words, you're leaving out the nature of this exchange and the opportunity costs.

(Back on-topic: Even Ayn Rand described the industrialists/capitalists who fed on the other industries through manipulated legislation as parasitic.)

i thought we were talking about businessmen in general, not just people who take advantage of corporate tax breaks. obviously i'm not in favor of government intervention most of the time.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"